Evaluation of suture material used in anterior colporrhaphy and the risk of recurrence.
Anterior colporrhaphy
Pelvic organ prolapse
Recurrence
Suture material
Suture technique
Journal
International urogynecology journal
ISSN: 1433-3023
Titre abrégé: Int Urogynecol J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101567041
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2020
10 2020
Historique:
received:
23
04
2020
accepted:
24
06
2020
pubmed:
9
7
2020
medline:
24
6
2021
entrez:
9
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The wide variety of suture material used in colporrhaphy shows a lack of consensus on the optimal choice. The evidence guiding the choice of suture material is scant. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of rapid versus slowly absorbable suture on risk of recurrence after native tissue anterior colporrhaphy. This longitudinal cohort study was performed secondary to a previously published study on pelvic organ prolapse recurrence after the Manchester-Fothergill procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy. Data were collected from four Danish databases and corresponding electronic medical records. In this study, women having had anterior colporrhaphy performed were included. Suture materials were divided in three groups: rapid absorbable multifilament suture (RAMuS), rapid absorbable monofilament suture (RAMoS) and slowly absorbable monofilament suture (SAMoS). The main outcome was recurrence of prolapse in the anterior compartment. A total of 462 women were included in this study. No significant difference in recurrence was found among the three suture groups. However, a non-significant tendency towards a higher risk of recurrence in the RAMoS group [HR 2.14 (0.75-6.10) p = 0.16] compared to the RAMuS group was observed. In this study, the use of rapid absorbable multifilament suture compared to slowly absorbable monofilament suture does not seem to lead to a higher risk of recurrence after anterior colporrhaphy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32638062
doi: 10.1007/s00192-020-04415-0
pii: 10.1007/s00192-020-04415-0
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2011-2018Références
Lowenstein E, Ottesen B, Gimbel H. Incidence and lifetime risk of pelvic organ prolapse surgery in Denmark from 1977 to 2009. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(1):49–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2413-y .
doi: 10.1007/s00192-014-2413-y
pubmed: 24842118
Hendrix SL, Clark A, Nygaard I, Aragaki A, Barnabei V, McTiernan A. Pelvic organ prolapse in the women's health initiative: gravity and gravidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186(6):1160–6. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2002.123819 .
doi: 10.1067/mob.2002.123819
pubmed: 12066091
Miedel A, Tegerstedt G, Morlin B, Hammarstrom M. A 5-year prospective follow-up study of vaginal surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19(12):1593–601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-008-0702-z .
doi: 10.1007/s00192-008-0702-z
pubmed: 18696002
Cvach K, Dwyer P. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse: abdominal and vaginal approaches. World J Urol. 2012;30(4):471–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0776-y .
doi: 10.1007/s00345-011-0776-y
pubmed: 22020436
Maher C, Baessler K, Glazener CM, Adams EJ, Hagen S. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women: a short version Cochrane review. Neurourol Urodyn. 2008;27(1):3–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.20542 .
doi: 10.1002/nau.20542
pubmed: 18092333
Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Brown J. Surgery for women with anterior compartment prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;11:CD004014. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub6 .
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub6
pubmed: 27901278
Lowenstein E, Moller LA, Laigaard J, Gimbel H. Reoperation for pelvic organ prolapse: a Danish cohort study with 15-20 years' follow-up. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(1):119–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3395-3 .
doi: 10.1007/s00192-017-3395-3
pubmed: 28674735
Madhuvrata P, Glazener C, Boachie C, Allahdin S, Bain C. A randomised controlled trial evaluating the use of polyglactin (Vicryl) mesh, polydioxanone (PDS) or polyglactin (Vicryl) sutures for pelvic organ prolapse surgery: outcomes at 2 years. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;31(5):429–35. https://doi.org/10.3109/01443615.2011.576282 .
doi: 10.3109/01443615.2011.576282
pubmed: 21627429
Allahdin S, Glazener C, Bain C. A randomised controlled trial evaluating the use of polyglactin mesh, polydioxanone and polyglactin sutures for pelvic organ prolapse surgery. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;28(4):427–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443610802150077 .
doi: 10.1080/01443610802150077
pubmed: 18604681
Bergman I, Söderberg MW, Kjaeldgaard A, Ek M. Does the choice of suture material matter in anterior and posterior colporrhaphy? Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(9):1357–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-2981-0 .
doi: 10.1007/s00192-016-2981-0
pubmed: 26935306
Muysoms FE, Antoniou SA, Bury K, Campanelli G, Conze J, Cuccurullo D, et al. European Hernia society guidelines on the closure of abdominal wall incisions. Hernia. 2015;19(1):1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-014-1342-5 .
doi: 10.1007/s10029-014-1342-5
pubmed: 25618025
Greenberg JA, Clark RM. Advances in suture material for obstetric and gynecologic surgery. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2009;2(3):146–58.
pubmed: 19826572
pmcid: 2760901
Mizon G, Duckett J. The effect of suture characteristics on short-term morbidity after vaginal prolapse surgery. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015;35(6):625–7. https://doi.org/10.3109/01443615.2014.991286 .
doi: 10.3109/01443615.2014.991286
pubmed: 25562704
Tolstrup CK, Husby KR, Lose G, Kopp TI, Viborg PH, Kesmodel US, et al. The Manchester-fothergill procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension: a matched historical cohort study. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(3):431–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3519-9 .
doi: 10.1007/s00192-017-3519-9
pubmed: 29288346
Antonsen K, Rosenstock CV, Lundstrom LH. The Danish Anaesthesia database. Clin Epidemiol. 2016;8:435–8. https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S99517 .
doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S99517
pubmed: 27843340
pmcid: 5098505
Guldberg R, Brostrom S, Hansen JK, Kaerlev L, Gradel KO, Norgard BM, et al. The Danish Urogynaecological database: establishment, completeness and validity. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(6):983–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1968-8 .
doi: 10.1007/s00192-012-1968-8
pubmed: 23073539
Topsoee M, Helene Ibfelt E, Settnes A. The Danish hysterectomy and hysteroscopy database. Clin Epidemiol Volume. 2016;8:515–20. https://doi.org/10.2147/clep.S99465 .
doi: 10.2147/clep.S99465
Durnea CM, Pergialiotis V, Duffy JMN, Bergstrom L, Elfituri A, Doumouchtsis SK. A systematic review of outcome and outcome-measure reporting in randomised trials evaluating surgical interventions for anterior-compartment vaginal prolapse: a call to action to develop a core outcome set. Int Urogynecol J. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3781-5 .
Barber MD, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Wheeler TL 2nd, Schaffer J, Chen Z, et al. Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(3):600–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b2b1ae .
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b2b1ae
pubmed: 19701041
pmcid: 2904469
Jelovsek JE, Maher C, Barber MD. Pelvic organ prolapse. Lancet. 2007;369(9566):1027–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(07)60462-0 .
doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(07)60462-0
pubmed: 17382829
Vergeldt TF, Weemhoff M, IntHout J, Kluivers KB. Risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse and its recurrence: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(11):1559–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2695-8 .
doi: 10.1007/s00192-015-2695-8
pubmed: 25966804
pmcid: 4611001
Peterson TV, Karp DR, Aguilar VC, Davila GW. Primary versus recurrent prolapse surgery: differences in outcomes. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(4):483–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-1057-9 .
doi: 10.1007/s00192-009-1057-9
pubmed: 20012429
Nüssler E, Eskildsen JK, Nüssler EK, Bixo M, Löfgren M. Impact of surgeon experience on routine prolapse operations. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;29(2):297–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3353-0 .
doi: 10.1007/s00192-017-3353-0
pubmed: 28577172
pmcid: 5780527
Al-Mubarak L, Al-Haddab M. Cutaneous wound closure materials: an overview and update. J Cutan Aesthet Surg. 2013;6(4):178–88. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-2077.123395 .
doi: 10.4103/0974-2077.123395
pubmed: 24470712
pmcid: 3884880
Dennis C, Sethu S, Nayak S, Mohan L, Morsi YY, Manivasagam G. Suture materials - current and emerging trends. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2016;104(6):1544–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.35683 .
doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.35683
pubmed: 26860644